I've always been intrigued by the idiocy of the end-times nutcakes. My favorites have always been Jack Van Impe and his adoring wife Rexella. I've tried repeatedly to get Jack's old books for a good laugh at his howling errors. But I discovered a mysterious circumstance. You can order the books from Amazon with a copyright date of, say 1971. But what you'll get is maybe a "fifteenth printing" dated 2014 or so. He keeps editing history to get rid of those howlers, you might guess. But how to prove it? Well, here's another curious bit of circumstantial evidence:

Try clicking on the video in that link, and see what you get. Curious the way those things go into a memory hole, isn't it? Just like Winston Smith's job in "1984," you have to keep history up-to-date!

Stay tuned for further edits here if you're at all interested. This is a rich vein for humor. Here's another take on the previous topic linked to, by a guy who, like me, hasn't actually read the book. (You can stream it from Amazon if you're willing to get enmeshed in Amazon's web.)

This website has dozens of links to videos, including all 11 parts of the Van Impe screed. And it is very amusing (to sick people like me) to click on one after another of those videos and ALWAYS get the message "This video is unavailable." Reminds me of the old days of Watergate when all past statements by the Nixon administration became "inoperative."

I guess I'll stop with one final edit. If one picture is worth a thousand words, here you have a million words about Jack and Rexella, none of them, I daresay, chosen with the intent to flatter them.

To spare you some tedium, he invokes his usual mantra that the world actually will NEVER end, but then he warns that something very well could happen on December 21, 2012, since there have been so many catastrophes lately, a sure time that the Second Coming is nigh. Part of his caution is probably due to some embarrassment over the Y2K fiasco, which he exploited as long as he possibly could, all the while hedging his bet by putting all the responsibility on secular predictors of disaster:

So, my search continues for a real Smoking Gun. It may never be there, because of the fact that he never predicts anything but a "possibility". If a possibility doesn't get realized, well, he wasn't actually wrong. Although he definitely has greatly expanded his interpretation of the word "generation" since the early days, when he thought the Second Coming would be at most 40 years after the founding of israel. He later declared that "further research" had led him to the conclusion that a "generation" might be 70 years. (In which case, the deadline is upon us; not that he cares at this point, being well into senility.) But just to be safe, he also hinted that it might be a hundred years.

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

Thank you. And thank you for assuming I HAVE a life, albeit a doomed one.

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

Hah! Actually, thanks to all of you for posting on this link. I finally (d'oh!) figured that just googling "false predictions" would produce a lot of useful links. And it did. It turns out, good Christians (and I mean that literally---these Christians are truly good people) have debunked the end-timers in great detail. No one can do it better than a person who REALLY knows the scriptures. Here are two excellent examples, showing the idiocy in particular of Van Impe, Lindsey, Robertson, Hagee, etc.:

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

Ah, that is superb! I can do that fairly well myself, although I've never bothered learning to associate the chapter and verse with particular phrases---not worth the trouble to me. Still, I can't do it as well as a Christian could, because the mere fact that I'm an atheist discredits me in the eyes of the believers (who are, after all, the ones who need to be convinced).

Here's a good example of the trifecta: A Bible-thumping Christian who reads it literally (or so he believes), AND believes the Darby-Scofield farrago of nonsense about the Rapture, AND embraces numerology (he's even more aroused by the number seven than the late unlamented Oral Roberts was).

One of the many campaign promises that Donald Trump has made is that he will move the US Embassy in Israel from its current location in Tel Aviv, to its new location in Jerusalem in accordance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. By doing that, the United States will recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and thus set off the Psalm 83 War as found in the Bible.

Last edited by Upton_O_Goode on Tue May 09, 2017 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

David Smally counters Christians with scripture pretty effectively. I've noticed that you really only need a few versus memorized, or written down to do it, as their arguments from scripture become predictable, even after listening to a few.

I'm listening to Thomas and the Bible podcast, it makes the Bible more fun. I was reading along, but I end up listening while sweeping up the shop, or putting away tools. Still in the Old Testament, so just old fables and BS, haven't gotten into prophecy. I read it when I was a young teen, which basically turned me into an atheist, I delved into other BS for a while, but really didn't believe anything fully after that. Rereading/ listening, there's plenty I've forgotten.

My favorite story so far, is originally Abraham, the father of the big three religions, was called Abram. His wife Sarah was called Shari, or close to it. "God changed their names", but anyone can guess that they changed them to hide their identity, most likely, and not very cleverly. They were con artists. Abraham would sell his wife, saying she was his sister, then they'd make off with the goods, mostly livestock.

It's in their own book, but somehow they do some mental gymnastics to overlook these things.

fromthehills wrote:My favorite story so far, is originally Abraham, the father of the big three religions, was called Abram. His wife Sarah was called Shari, or close to it. "God changed their names", but anyone can guess that they changed them to hide their identity, most likely, and not very cleverly. They were con artists. Abraham would sell his wife, saying she was his sister, then they'd make off with the goods, mostly livestock.

It's in their own book, but somehow they do some mental gymnastics to overlook these things.

The saga of Abraham is one of the richest in material to illustrate that progress in the human race is very uneven. Most people would condemn Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son when the voices in his head told him to do that. But not the Fundies. To them, Abraham could be absolutely SURE he was hearing from God. So, OK, if Abraham had a brain, he would say, "God commands murder." So, if you have free will, why obey? You surely can't claim it's because God is GOOD, if he commands you to murder your son. So, maybe Abraham is smart enough to think, "Aha, God is testing me. He won't REALLY let me murder Isaac." In that case, was he only pretending to obey? Did he plan to stop at the last moment? Nope, God, who knows everything, was SURE Abraham would have actually have gone through with it. So we're back to the previous question: Why worship a God who commands murder?

To rationalize all this, the Fundies wind up saying that man cannot make moral judgments, but is morally obliged to obey the oracle they call the Bible. That's very convenient, and never mind the considerable amount of ambiguity found therein. If everything we believe about right and wrong is utterly unreliable, then all sorts of things become possible. God can, for example, allow innocent children to be born into extreme poverty, suffer from hereditary diseases for a few miserable years, then perish in a volcanic eruption or an earthquake or a flood. Glory to God! What could Satan do that would be worse than that? On what grounds do they prefer God to Satan? I don't know. I've heard the pious Rev. Pat Robertson say that God sometimes commands the utter destruction of a whole people (as in "Joshua utterly slew everything that breathed"), and this is a mercy, because those people would have reproduced and sent yet MORE people to Hell. The Fundy mind is a marvelous thing!

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

The most dangerous enemy is the enemy within. Grider hopes to woo Hovind back to belief in a Pretribulation Rapture. Well, if it's going to be a battle of wits, Hovind is unarmed. He's been in prison for the last decade, but before that, he used to appear regularly on my television screen, flaunting a bogus PhD and luring in the rubes to his "creation museum." The "legal difficulties" alluded to on the link were the result of his claiming to belong to the Kingdom of God and therefore refusing to pay taxes to the USA.

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

fromthehills wrote:My favorite story so far, is originally Abraham, the father of the big three religions, was called Abram. His wife Sarah was called Shari, or close to it. "God changed their names", but anyone can guess that they changed them to hide their identity, most likely, and not very cleverly. They were con artists. Abraham would sell his wife, saying she was his sister, then they'd make off with the goods, mostly livestock.

It's in their own book, but somehow they do some mental gymnastics to overlook these things.

The saga of Abraham is one of the richest in material to illustrate that progress in the human race is very uneven. Most people would condemn Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son when the voices in his head told him to do that. But not the Fundies. To them, Abraham could be absolutely SURE he was hearing from God. So, OK, if Abraham had a brain, he would say, "God commands murder." So, if you have free will, why obey? You surely can't claim it's because God is GOOD, if he commands you to murder your son. So, maybe Abraham is smart enough to think, "Aha, God is testing me. He won't REALLY let me murder Isaac." In that case, was he only pretending to obey? Did he plan to stop at the last moment? Nope, God, who knows everything, was SURE Abraham would have actually have gone through with it. So we're back to the previous question: Why worship a God who commands murder?

To rationalize all this, the Fundies wind up saying that man cannot make moral judgments, but is morally obliged to obey the oracle they call the Bible. That's very convenient, and never mind the considerable amount of ambiguity found therein. If everything we believe about right and wrong is utterly unreliable, then all sorts of things become possible. God can, for example, allow innocent children to be born into extreme poverty, suffer from hereditary diseases for a few miserable years, then perish in a volcanic eruption or an earthquake or a flood. Glory to God! What could Satan do that would be worse than that? On what grounds do they prefer God to Satan? I don't know. I've heard the pious Rev. Pat Robertson say that God sometimes commands the utter destruction of a whole people (as in "Joshua utterly slew everything that breathed"), and this is a mercy, because those people would have reproduced and sent yet MORE people to Hell. The Fundy mind is a marvelous thing!

I can't explain why anyone today would try to justify Abraham's actions. The story was told at a time when people were actually sacrificing children, sometimes their own. So, anyone hearing it at the time would think of that as plausible. Most of us don't think Gods tell people to sacrifice children anymore, and in fact, the story ends with God saying he won't be doing that. From the perspective of someone in the desert 3,000 years ago, this was an improvement, a social revolution, a huge leap in human rights. I'm sure a lot of mothers were really happy about it. But it left the hook in. It left the decision to make arbitrary judgments about what is right and wrong up to a supreme being that is heard only by special people. We still haven't dealt with that part.

Lausten wrote:I can't explain why anyone today would try to justify Abraham's actions. The story was told at a time when people were actually sacrificing children, sometimes their own. So, anyone hearing it at the time would think of that as plausible. Most of us don't think Gods tell people to sacrifice children anymore, and in fact, the story ends with God saying he won't be doing that. From the perspective of someone in the desert 3,000 years ago, this was an improvement, a social revolution, a huge leap in human rights. I'm sure a lot of mothers were really happy about it. But it left the hook in. It left the decision to make arbitrary judgments about what is right and wrong up to a supreme being that is heard only by special people. We still haven't dealt with that part.

I concur completely with this. Of course, there remains the fact that Pat Robertson STILL thinks it's OK to wipe out an entire people. At least, he thinks it WOULD BE OK, because he believes God never changes. Still, as you say, it's an advance that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God has stopped ordering the murder of children. But most civilized countries have done this. Euripides and Sophocles depicted the sacrificial tradition in their plays and held them up to the horror of the audience. True, the Spartans continued to expose weak babies, out of a eugenic policy...

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

Lausten wrote:I can't explain why anyone today would try to justify Abraham's actions. The story was told at a time when people were actually sacrificing children, sometimes their own. So, anyone hearing it at the time would think of that as plausible. Most of us don't think Gods tell people to sacrifice children anymore, and in fact, the story ends with God saying he won't be doing that. From the perspective of someone in the desert 3,000 years ago, this was an improvement, a social revolution, a huge leap in human rights. I'm sure a lot of mothers were really happy about it. But it left the hook in. It left the decision to make arbitrary judgments about what is right and wrong up to a supreme being that is heard only by special people. We still haven't dealt with that part.

I concur completely with this. Of course, there remains the fact that Pat Robertson STILL thinks it's OK to wipe out an entire people. At least, he thinks it WOULD BE OK, because he believes God never changes. Still, as you say, it's an advance that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God has stopped ordering the murder of children. But most civilized countries have done this. Euripides and Sophocles depicted the sacrificial tradition in their plays and held them up to the horror of the audience. True, the Spartans continued to expose weak babies, out of a eugenic policy...

I made no claim to this being the first time it was suggested we don't sacrifice babies. I would bet the first that was suggested was right after the first time someone said, "hey, let's sacrifice a baby". There is no comparison from then to now, where we know about things that happen on the other side of the world instantly. If Nelson Mandela says something profound, we hear about it the next day. Unfortunately many people are still cut off, but back then, "cut off" was the normal state. I don't know when Euripides lived in relation to when the Abraham stories were written down, but it doesn't matter. Very few people would have known of both of them at the time. Civilizations had to discover these things over and over again before they took hold.

Lausten wrote:I can't explain why anyone today would try to justify Abraham's actions. The story was told at a time when people were actually sacrificing children, sometimes their own. So, anyone hearing it at the time would think of that as plausible. Most of us don't think Gods tell people to sacrifice children anymore, and in fact, the story ends with God saying he won't be doing that. From the perspective of someone in the desert 3,000 years ago, this was an improvement, a social revolution, a huge leap in human rights. I'm sure a lot of mothers were really happy about it. But it left the hook in. It left the decision to make arbitrary judgments about what is right and wrong up to a supreme being that is heard only by special people. We still haven't dealt with that part.

I concur completely with this. Of course, there remains the fact that Pat Robertson STILL thinks it's OK to wipe out an entire people. At least, he thinks it WOULD BE OK, because he believes God never changes. Still, as you say, it's an advance that in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God has stopped ordering the murder of children. But most civilized countries have done this. Euripides and Sophocles depicted the sacrificial tradition in their plays and held them up to the horror of the audience. True, the Spartans continued to expose weak babies, out of a eugenic policy...

I made no claim to this being the first time it was suggested we don't sacrifice babies. I would bet the first that was suggested was right after the first time someone said, "hey, let's sacrifice a baby". There is no comparison from then to now, where we know about things that happen on the other side of the world instantly. If Nelson Mandela says something profound, we hear about it the next day. Unfortunately many people are still cut off, but back then, "cut off" was the normal state. I don't know when Euripides lived in relation to when the Abraham stories were written down, but it doesn't matter. Very few people would have known of both of them at the time. Civilizations had to discover these things over and over again before they took hold.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were saying that the Abraham story was the first to condemn the sacrifice of children. There's also the later story of General Jethro, who promised Yahweh he'd sacrifice the first thing he saw when returning home if he won the victory. And, of course, the first thing he saw was his own beloved daughter. Again, this is condemned by the surrounding text. Jethro lived a little after the Trojan War, but probably didn't know about it. He lived probably about 500 years before Sophocles and Euripides. But, if the Romans are to be believed, the Carthaginians sacrificed their children to the god Moloch (burned them alive!) in order to get success in what the Romans called the Punic Wars. This story was believed by such writers as Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Bertrand Russell. According to Russell, aristocratic Carthaginian parents would buy their children's way out of the sacrifice, until some purifying prophet came along to denounce this on the grounds that it cheated Moloch out of the aristocratic blood he required. At the worst of the war, aristocratic children were also being burnt. Russell commented that, "Strange to say, the Romans won the war despite this democratic reform on the part of the Carthaginians." I'm not sure what sources Russell was using.

"When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts."

Well, firstly, for Biblical Prophecy to be true, the Bible has to be true. Now the Old Testaments may have some credence to them, albeit a BIG may.

As for the New Testaments, well they have to be the greatest load of hogswash you ever came across. The Gospels, at least those that have been included in this erstwhile publication, contradict each other. Jesus, or Joshua by his greek name, is rarely mentioned. As to his actual existence, well that is open to debate. The Romans were very meticulous in their record keeping, so one would expect to find something about Jesus's death and about Pontius Pilate. Guess what? Go search, there is nothing there.

Actually, it would appear, with great certainty, that the Jesus figure was based upon the Egyptian God, Osiris, or the Greek God, Dionysus. Strangely enough, both these Gods, often referenced together, bear some outstanding similarities to Jesus. Maybe I should say that Jesus bears great similarities to Osiris/Dionysus. They share the same birth date, the same death date, they all arose again from the dead, and remarkably, all were born of a virgin Mother.

Of course the virgin birth is another story. It would appear that the story fails in the translation. Apparently, the original texts actually spoke of a 'Young Woman', not a virgin. And Christianity itself is clearly based on the pagan religions of the time. May I refer you all to a book written by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, titled "The Jesus Mysteries", available on Amazon or Kobo. An easy to read volume, that is very well referenced. Quite an eye-opener.

Phoenix76 wrote:Well, firstly, for Biblical Prophecy to be true, the Bible has to be true. Now the Old Testaments may have some credence to them, albeit a BIG may.

As for the New Testaments, well they have to be the greatest load of hogswash you ever came across. The Gospels, at least those that have been included in this erstwhile publication, contradict each other. Jesus, or Joshua by his greek name, is rarely mentioned. As to his actual existence, well that is open to debate. The Romans were very meticulous in their record keeping, so one would expect to find something about Jesus's death and about Pontius Pilate. Guess what? Go search, there is nothing there.

Actually, it would appear, with great certainty, that the Jesus figure was based upon the Egyptian God, Osiris, or the Greek God, Dionysus. Strangely enough, both these Gods, often referenced together, bear some outstanding similarities to Jesus. Maybe I should say that Jesus bears great similarities to Osiris/Dionysus. They share the same birth date, the same death date, they all arose again from the dead, and remarkably, all were born of a virgin Mother.

Of course the virgin birth is another story. It would appear that the story fails in the translation. Apparently, the original texts actually spoke of a 'Young Woman', not a virgin. And Christianity itself is clearly based on the pagan religions of the time. May I refer you all to a book written by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, titled "The Jesus Mysteries", available on Amazon or Kobo. An easy to read volume, that is very well referenced. Quite an eye-opener.

As to OT credence, if we place a rational and historical context of some of the events, they make more sense. Many religions include a flood story. Interestingly, all those cultures were located in river valleys and were relatively primitive. Placed in that context, the apocalyptic story is reduced to reasonable proportions. To a primitive mind, that river valley was the entire world.

Totally agree with you on the Romans and their records. Plus, all four gospels were written after the alleged lifetime of Jesus, so they don't qualify as evidence; they're merely hearsay.

Christianity is just another mystery religion, and not a very original one at that. It just assimilated the ideas and rituals of other religions it encountered. To this day, I still have to bite my tongue at RC funerals when the priest lights incense and walks widdershins 'round the altar three times. Take that, evil spirits!

Phoenix76 wrote:Well, firstly, for Biblical Prophecy to be true, the Bible has to be true. Now the Old Testaments may have some credence to them, albeit a BIG may.

As for the New Testaments, well they have to be the greatest load of hogswash you ever came across. The Gospels, at least those that have been included in this erstwhile publication, contradict each other. Jesus, or Joshua by his greek name, is rarely mentioned. As to his actual existence, well that is open to debate. The Romans were very meticulous in their record keeping, so one would expect to find something about Jesus's death and about Pontius Pilate. Guess what? Go search, there is nothing there.

Actually, it would appear, with great certainty, that the Jesus figure was based upon the Egyptian God, Osiris, or the Greek God, Dionysus. Strangely enough, both these Gods, often referenced together, bear some outstanding similarities to Jesus. Maybe I should say that Jesus bears great similarities to Osiris/Dionysus. They share the same birth date, the same death date, they all arose again from the dead, and remarkably, all were born of a virgin Mother.

Of course the virgin birth is another story. It would appear that the story fails in the translation. Apparently, the original texts actually spoke of a 'Young Woman', not a virgin. And Christianity itself is clearly based on the pagan religions of the time. May I refer you all to a book written by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, titled "The Jesus Mysteries", available on Amazon or Kobo. An easy to read volume, that is very well referenced. Quite an eye-opener.

As to OT credence, if we place a rational and historical context of some of the events, they make more sense. Many religions include a flood story. Interestingly, all those cultures were located in river valleys and were relatively primitive. Placed in that context, the apocalyptic story is reduced to reasonable proportions. To a primitive mind, that river valley was the entire world.

Totally agree with you on the Romans and their records. Plus, all four gospels were written after the alleged lifetime of Jesus, so they don't qualify as evidence; they're merely hearsay.

Christianity is just another mystery religion, and not a very original one at that. It just assimilated the ideas and rituals of other religions it encountered. To this day, I still have to bite my tongue at RC funerals when the priest lights incense and walks widdershins 'round the altar three times. Take that, evil spirits!

The OT by all accounts has been re-ordered by early Christians to suit their cause. And we talk a lot about fake news these days. Believe me, we have no ownership over that. The number of fake letters, gospels and et al that were left behind by Christianity is mind boggling. Add to that the absolute destruction of many Pagan writings, and Gnostic Christian writings, we are lucky to have much real history to fall back on. Recent discoveries of writings and scrolls in Egypt have helped in unravelling the past.

With reference to the book I mentioned, whilst it certainly blows the lid on "Jesus Christ", the closing chapter lost me when the authors declared their hands as people who still believe in God. That's their entitlement, but as an Atheist, I struggle to understand why people must try and reach for this supreme being. Are they so insecure within themselves? Can't they accept that as of this time, we came about by evolution, not creationism? That it all started with a bloody big bang?

If I were a believer in such a supreme being, and a being that is supposed to be all omnipotent, all knowing, all loving, &etc, I would ask but a simple question. Why would such an all loving being, with all that power, allow young children to die, die violently, be abused by the scum of the earth? Don't give me any BS about being rewarded in the afterlife, there isn't any. As any good Physics scholar will tell you, we emanated from the big bang. We are made up of the components of the big bang.

Perhaps the jury is still out on just how the big bang precisely happened, but they are getting closer. So until there is proof of something else apart from lies and made up cr*p, I remain an Atheist and a Skeptic. We are born, we live our lives be they short or long, and we die. Nothing more certain, totally accepted. To quote an old satanist, Alistair Crowley, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". LeFey added an important rider to this - "But in doing so, do not cause hurt to others". LeFey is the author of the modern version of Satanism and the Satanic Bible.

I don't believe in that cr*p either, but the saying of Crowley together with LeFey's addition, gives a pretty good rule for living one's life. But it all makes for good reading and learning.

Phoenix76 wrote:The OT by all accounts has been re-ordered by early Christians to suit their cause. And we talk a lot about fake news these days. Believe me, we have no ownership over that. The number of fake letters, gospels and et al that were left behind by Christianity is mind boggling. Add to that the absolute destruction of many Pagan writings, and Gnostic Christian writings, we are lucky to have much real history to fall back on. Recent discoveries of writings and scrolls in Egypt have helped in unravelling the past.

Absolutely! In all honesty, modern Christianity should be called "Paulism." It certainly follows his particular brand of nastiness more than anything Jesus taught.

Phoenix76 wrote:With reference to the book I mentioned, whilst it certainly blows the lid on "Jesus Christ", the closing chapter lost me when the authors declared their hands as people who still believe in God. That's their entitlement, but as an Atheist, I struggle to understand why people must try and reach for this supreme being. Are they so insecure within themselves? Can't they accept that as of this time, we came about by evolution, not creationism? That it all started with a bloody big bang?

Wait...so after working to disprove the existence of Jesus, they still believe in the biblical god? I don't get it. I mean I get that many people can't face the reality that the universe doesn't give a crap, and that life is unfair and short, without making up a fairy tale about a magically-infinite, happy, pain-free afterlife. But they get so distracted by their fairy tale that they forget to live. To me, that seems seriously delusional.

Phoenix76 wrote:If I were a believer in such a supreme being, and a being that is supposed to be all omnipotent, all knowing, all loving, &etc, I would ask but a simple question. Why would such an all loving being, with all that power, allow young children to die, die violently, be abused by the scum of the earth? Don't give me any BS about being rewarded in the afterlife, there isn't any. As any good Physics scholar will tell you, we emanated from the big bang. We are made up of the components of the big bang.

They usually toss out the patent "free will" answer to that one, as well as the alleged non-interference agreement. Their arguments remind me of Jon Lovitz's congenital liar character from Saturday Night Live.

Phoenix76 wrote:Perhaps the jury is still out on just how the big bang precisely happened, but they are getting closer. So until there is proof of something else apart from lies and made up cr*p, I remain an Atheist and a Skeptic. We are born, we live our lives be they short or long, and we die. Nothing more certain, totally accepted. To quote an old satanist, Alistair Crowley, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". LeFey added an important rider to this - "But in doing so, do not cause hurt to others". LeFey is the author of the modern version of Satanism and the Satanic Bible.

I don't believe in that cr*p either, but the saying of Crowley together with LeFey's addition, gives a pretty good rule for living one's life. But it all makes for good reading and learning.

Modern satanists have removed themselves even further, and are not religious at all. Most are humanists. I agree that the Golden Rule is the only behavioral guideline a thinking person needs.

Phoenix76 wrote:...May I refer you all to a book written by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, titled "The Jesus Mysteries", available on Amazon or Kobo. An easy to read volume, that is very well referenced. Quite an eye-opener.

LunaNik wrote:As to OT credence, if we place a rational and historical context of some of the events, they make more sense. Many religions include a flood story. Interestingly, all those cultures were located in river valleys and were relatively primitive. Placed in that context, the apocalyptic story is reduced to reasonable proportions. To a primitive mind, that river valley was the entire world.

While it is dated (1969) and I don't think it's accurate in all places, I still enjoy reading it. The section on The Deluge spans nearly 50 pages, including at least 45 pages on flood stories from around the world, including: Egypt (from the so-called Book of the Dead), Greece (Deucalion), Europe (Iceland's Younger Edda; Welsh Dwyfa and Dwyfach; Lithuanian; Vogul), India, Eastern Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea and Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia, Australia, North America, Central American and Mexico, and South America. They're not all from cultures in mountainous regions, but "[i]n all the flood stories the heroes are rescued (obviously) by reaching high ground" (p.128).

Phoenix76 wrote:...May I refer you all to a book written by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, titled "The Jesus Mysteries", available on Amazon or Kobo. An easy to read volume, that is very well referenced. Quite an eye-opener.

Read your wikipedia reference Gord - interesting. Seems the vote is one sort of in favour, and the rest against. Unlike some wiki articles, this one is rather short on references to substantiate what they are saying. Freke and Gandy at least went to the trouble of including a vast array of references.

Some of the naysayers seemed to strike me as Christians defending their beliefs. I struggle with people of blind faith. Anyhow, none of us know for sure, doubt we ever will, but it all makes for great debate - provided you keep an open mind.

Gord wrote: I struggle with people of blind faith. Anyhow, none of us know for sure, doubt we ever will, but it all makes for great debate - provided you keep an open mind.

Any skeptic will know, "close enough." I do love the rhetoric of "keep an open mind" as if that was a positive thing instead of the Sirens' call to Destruction. I do love the convincing argument of most religious types have closed their minds to all the religions they do reject (ie: all except theirs) demonstrating that atheists and religious and agnostics and opened minded and those incapable of making uncomfortable decisions are all more alike than different: rejecting most silly notions. Atheists just reject that last God.

There is nothing admirable about an open mind to silliness.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Phoenix76 wrote:The OT by all accounts has been re-ordered by early Christians to suit their cause. And we talk a lot about fake news these days. Believe me, we have no ownership over that. The number of fake letters, gospels and et al that were left behind by Christianity is mind boggling. Add to that the absolute destruction of many Pagan writings, and Gnostic Christian writings, we are lucky to have much real history to fall back on. Recent discoveries of writings and scrolls in Egypt have helped in unravelling the past.

Absolutely! In all honesty, modern Christianity should be called "Paulism." It certainly follows his particular brand of nastiness more than anything Jesus taught.

Phoenix76 wrote:With reference to the book I mentioned, whilst it certainly blows the lid on "Jesus Christ", the closing chapter lost me when the authors declared their hands as people who still believe in God. That's their entitlement, but as an Atheist, I struggle to understand why people must try and reach for this supreme being. Are they so insecure within themselves? Can't they accept that as of this time, we came about by evolution, not creationism? That it all started with a bloody big bang?

Wait...so after working to disprove the existence of Jesus, they still believe in the biblical god? I don't get it. I mean I get that many people can't face the reality that the universe doesn't give a crap, and that life is unfair and short, without making up a fairy tale about a magically-infinite, happy, pain-free afterlife. But they get so distracted by their fairy tale that they forget to live. To me, that seems seriously delusional.

Phoenix76 wrote:If I were a believer in such a supreme being, and a being that is supposed to be all omnipotent, all knowing, all loving, &etc, I would ask but a simple question. Why would such an all loving being, with all that power, allow young children to die, die violently, be abused by the scum of the earth? Don't give me any BS about being rewarded in the afterlife, there isn't any. As any good Physics scholar will tell you, we emanated from the big bang. We are made up of the components of the big bang.

They usually toss out the patent "free will" answer to that one, as well as the alleged non-interference agreement. Their arguments remind me of Jon Lovitz's congenital liar character from Saturday Night Live.

Phoenix76 wrote:Perhaps the jury is still out on just how the big bang precisely happened, but they are getting closer. So until there is proof of something else apart from lies and made up cr*p, I remain an Atheist and a Skeptic. We are born, we live our lives be they short or long, and we die. Nothing more certain, totally accepted. To quote an old satanist, Alistair Crowley, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". LeFey added an important rider to this - "But in doing so, do not cause hurt to others". LeFey is the author of the modern version of Satanism and the Satanic Bible.

I don't believe in that cr*p either, but the saying of Crowley together with LeFey's addition, gives a pretty good rule for living one's life. But it all makes for good reading and learning.

Modern satanists have removed themselves even further, and are not religious at all. Most are humanists. I agree that the Golden Rule is the only behavioral guideline a thinking person needs.

Yes you appear to be quite right about modern day satanists. They are probably better described as true Atheists as they neither believe in a god or a devil. They certainly seem to distance themselves from some of the atrocities committed in the past.

Yes "free will", but then we here that our destinies are pre-ordained. Can't have both.

And yes, I found their conclusion chapter most confusing. As you say, why the hell go through all the writing and research to disprove a physical Jesus and then declare your belief. Well perhaps their belief is in a mystical Jesus rather than the physical.

Gord wrote: I struggle with people of blind faith. Anyhow, none of us know for sure, doubt we ever will, but it all makes for great debate - provided you keep an open mind.

Any skeptic will know, "close enough." I do love the rhetoric of "keep an open mind" as if that was a positive thing instead of the Sirens' call to Destruction. I do love the convincing argument of most religious types have closed their minds to all the religions they do reject (ie: all except theirs) demonstrating that atheists and religious and agnostics and opened minded and those incapable of making uncomfortable decisions are all more alike than different: rejecting most silly notions. Atheists just reject that last God.

There is nothing admirable about an open mind to silliness.

Well maybe it's not an open mind to silliness so much as an open mind that will listen to alternatives or reasoning, before they consign it to the scrap bin.

And as for rejecting just the last god, well to me an Atheist rejects any god or deity no matter. Then maybe like a reformed smoker, as a reformed christian, maybe my views are stronger than some. As a forensic accountant, I have a habit of researching and digging until I can prove or disprove. This is where my "open mind" perhaps comes from, for I don't believe or disbelieve anything until I find proof either way.

Phoenix76 wrote:As a forensic accountant, I have a habit of researching and digging until I can prove or disprove. This is where my "open mind" perhaps comes from, for I don't believe or disbelieve anything until I find proof either way.

Well, THAT would be your problem right there.........if it were true. Truth is: you'd be dead if you followed this trope. Makes a good cover story and sometimes a simple lie is better than a more complicated truth. Double entry accounting has nothing to do with anything outside the books.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Phoenix76 wrote:As a forensic accountant, I have a habit of researching and digging until I can prove or disprove. This is where my "open mind" perhaps comes from, for I don't believe or disbelieve anything until I find proof either way.

Well, THAT would be your problem right there.........if it were true. Truth is: you'd be dead if you followed this trope. Makes a good cover story and sometimes a simple lie is better than a more complicated truth. Double entry accounting has nothing to do with anything outside the books.

Well double entry accounting doesn't really have much to do with anything. When you start on triple or quadruple entry, then it becomes interesting.

And yes, it is a trope. We often speak in a figurative sense, doesn't mean we are following such trope to its ridiculous end. But still does not defy the fact that I like digging for the truth. And if I dug for the truth on everything that I believe or disbelieve, yes I would be the proverbial dust to dust, ashes to ashes.

But frankly, I don't have a problem. If I can learn the truth about something that interests me, then that's good. If I can't, well that's good too. Certainly not going to get worry lines over it. And there are many things in this world that I just don't give a damn about, so I am not going to waste my time chasing them. Just received my online edition of the Skeptic magazine. I read what took my interest and ignored the rest other than the story title.

So "bobbo", thank you for your obvious concern about my health or mental state, or whatever else, most kind of you. But please don'y worry yourself anymore, I feel that i am quite in control of it all.

LunaNik wrote:As to OT credence, if we place a rational and historical context of some of the events, they make more sense. Many religions include a flood story. Interestingly, all those cultures were located in river valleys and were relatively primitive. Placed in that context, the apocalyptic story is reduced to reasonable proportions. To a primitive mind, that river valley was the entire world.

While it is dated (1969) and I don't think it's accurate in all places, I still enjoy reading it. The section on The Deluge spans nearly 50 pages, including at least 45 pages on flood stories from around the world, including: Egypt (from the so-called Book of the Dead), Greece (Deucalion), Europe (Iceland's Younger Edda; Welsh Dwyfa and Dwyfach; Lithuanian; Vogul), India, Eastern Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea and Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia, Australia, North America, Central American and Mexico, and South America. They're not all from cultures in mountainous regions, but "[i]n all the flood stories the heroes are rescued (obviously) by reaching high ground" (p.128).

That many? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I mentioned river valley because the variables I was considering were (1) arable soil, and (2) prone to disastrous flooding in times of glacial melting. I suppose deltas would fit those variables as well. The whole Noah's Ark story and its analogs seems self-aggrandizing; it's more likely that the people followed the animals who were migrating to avoid the disaster.